MO woman sues cafe that throws rolls for throwing rolls

[Kimberlyd125]

Many in this country go to restaurants for the quality of the food and not for the experience of dodging projectiles.


JMO

Unless she couldn't read, she knew there would be "projectiles".

 

[MyBelle]

Unless she couldn't read, she knew there would be "projectiles".

Perhaps she couldn't read. If a child had been injured would you be still be making excuses for a stupid business practice?

JMO

 

[atthelake]

Unless she couldn't read, she knew there would be "projectiles".

Pffft Pffffft imho . Reminds me of places where they try to get away with having a "bailment" by having a sign saying we are not responsible for damage to your car.

It is a business and they expect sometimes to have to pay out for stuff. Perhaps think like a pharmaceutical who has deaths from drugs . It is a business calculation for damages which is on their books for many companies .

Pfft ..wrong ! Restaurant tried that on me when a valet *wrecked* my car.... and I was very very angry that they just did not own up to it and settle for a little amount f what my damages were...and I took them to court.

:angel:


She may be partially responsible, and that is what is all this is about? Has there been any media follow up at all on this?

 

[Kimberlyd125]

She would have to show medical records to prove she suffered head and neck trauma. The idea that she threw a dinner roll at her self to severely damage her eyes is just ridiculous. And I think if she was looking for money, she would sue for more than $25k.

$25,000 is the jurisdictional limit and her attorney does plan on asking for more. Since it is the jurisdictional limit, that's probably the highest number they could put on the lawsuit. But since her attorney has already said they are going for more (with only $6,000-$10,000 in medical bills), I'd say he's trying to make sure his 30-40% cut (most likely) will be large enough for his time.

JMO

JMO

http://fox2now.com/2015/08/13/the-man-behind-the-throwed-roll-lawsuit-against-lamberts/

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Perhaps she couldn't read. If a child had been injured would you be still be making excuses for a stupid business practice?

JMO

She's a pastor. Surely she can read.

And a child would be the parents' responsibility. We read for our children who can't and we make decisions we think are best for their safety and well being.

What you call stupid is a practice that draws many many people. So I guess that's just opinion.

But IMO you shouldn't be able to sue for a situation you were aware you were putting yourself in.

 

[atthelake]

$25,000 is the jurisdictional limit and her attorney does plan on asking for more. Since it is the jurisdictional limit, that's probably the highest number they could put on the lawsuit. But since her attorney has already said they are going for more (with only $6,000-$10,000 in medical bills), I'd say he's trying to make sure his 30-40% cut (most likely) will be large enough for his time.

JMO

JMO

http://fox2now.com/2015/08/13/the-man-behind-the-throwed-roll-lawsuit-against-lamberts/

Don't forget person if they win have to count perhaps as income ...so they only get about 30%???

I cringe when I watch the price is right and those other shows because they are having to pay taxes on something... and I wonder how many people can afford to pay taxes on that $10,000 trip that they just won lol

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Don't forget person if they win have to count perhaps as income ...so they only get about 30%???

I cringe when I watch the price is right and those other shows because they are having to pay taxes on something... and I wonder how many people can afford to pay taxes on that $10,000 trip that they just won lol

I don't think suit settlements are considered income. I may be wrong. Like you don't pay income taxes on it.

I know you don't pay income taxes on money collected from insurance settlements. Maybe a lost wage settlement I'm not sure. I don't think so.

I haven't seen anything about the pastor claiming lost wages. But I could have missed it.

 

[MyBelle]

Pffft Pffffft imho . Reminds me of places where they try to get away with having a "bailment" by having a sign saying we are not responsible for damage to your car.

It is a business and they expect sometimes to have to pay out for stuff. Perhaps think like a pharmaceutical who has deaths from drugs . It is a business calculation for damages which is on their books for many companies .

Pfft ..wrong ! Restaurant tried that on me when a valet *wrecked* my car.... and I was very very angry that they just did not own up to it and settle for a little amount f what my damages were...and I took them to court.

:angel:


She may be partially responsible, and that is what is all this is about? Has there been any media follow up at all on this?

Since she is the one injured, I doubt she will be found to be at fault. Her literacy has been questioned by some posters but then I think any literate adult would be confused at a sign that boasts of "throwed rolls."

"Throwed up" is something my 3-y-o grandson says.

JMO

 

[Kimberlyd125]

One thing is for sure. When that check is issued (unless the attorney has agreed to take the case for free) the attorney's name or the firms' name will be included on the check. They make sure they get their cut. The first thing an attorney does when agreeing to represent a client, is send a letter of representation and a notice of lien (signed by the claimant) to the insurance company and the insured.

 

[MyBelle]

She's a pastor. Surely she can read.

And a child would be the parents' responsibility. We read for our children who can't and we make decisions we think are best for their safety and well being.

What you call stupid is a practice that draws many many people. So I guess that's just opinion.

But IMO you shouldn't be able to sue for a situation you were aware you were putting yourself in.

A child's parents would have grounds to sue the place if their child was injured. Not sure where you get the idea that a patron is to blame for an injury sustained in negligence by the business.

"Throwed roll" isn't grammatical and is a stupid practice that is going to cost the business owner real money. If the stupid choose to eat there, so be it.

JMO

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Since she is the one injured, I doubt she will be found to be at fault. Her literacy has been questioned by some posters but then I think any literate adult would be confused at a sign that boasts of "throwed rolls."

"Throwed up" is something my 3-y-o grandson says.

JMO

I don't think her literacy has been questioned. Just the point made that if she can read, and I'm sure she can because she's a pastor, she rode by billboards and entered a door that advertises thrown rolls.

And she was with a group of people from church. I'm sure they all knew the rolls would be thrown.

How can people be confused by a two word sign? It's two words.
And very self explanatory.

Agree with the suit or not, I think we all know she knew there would be thrown rolls. No way she didn't.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

I don't think her literacy has been questioned. Just the point made that if she can read, and I'm sure she can because she's a pastor, she rode by billboards and entered a door that advertises thrown rolls.

And she was with a group of people from church. I'm sure they all knew the rolls would be thrown.

How can people be confused by a two word sign? It's two words.
And very self explanatory.

Agree with the suit or not, I think we all know she knew there would be thrown rolls. No way she didn't.

JMO

Can you prove the group saw the advertising and also read it? Of course you can't. Not all adults stare out the window and read billboards when they travel. Especially when they are in the middle of nowhere on the Interstate. Sikeston is the middle of nowhere. I doubt they stopped there for any experience other than eating.

"Throwed rolls" makes absolutely no sense. Somebody not from around there would be clueless as to the meaning even if they had read it.

The business is going to lose the lawsuit and they will pay just as they've done in the past. Similar claims will start pouring in.

JMO

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Can you prove the group saw the advertising and also read it? Of course you can't. Not all adults stare out the window and read billboards when they travel. Especially when they are in the middle of nowhere on the Interstate. Sikeston is the middle of nowhere. I doubt they stopped there for any experience other than eating.

"Throwed rolls" makes absolutely no sense. Somebody not from around there would be clueless as to the meaning even if they had read it.

The business is going to lose the lawsuit and they will pay just as they've done in the past. Similar claims will start pouring in.

JMO

I can't prove they saw the advertising but I'm assuming they went in through the door. There is a sign on the door.

Nobody in the group saw the sign? Nobody in the group saw the waiters tossing rolls as they walked to their table?

GMAB. common sense tells me otherwise.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

If you get hit by a foul ball at a ball game who do you sue? The batter? The team? The ball manufacturer?

Or do you assume the risk when you buy your ticket and take your seat?

 

[MyBelle]

I can't prove they saw the advertising but I'm assuming they went in through the door. There is a sign on the door.

Nobody in the group saw the sign? Nobody in the group saw the waiters tossing rolls as they walked to their table?

GMAB. common sense tells me otherwise.

You are making a nonsensical argument because the sign isn't grammatically correct.

Common sense usually can differentiate between an advertisement and a warning sign but perhaps it is deemed to be one and the same in the middle of nowhere Missouri and travelers would be wise to avoid it altogether. That's what I always do.

JMO

 

[Montjoy]

I can't prove they saw the advertising but I'm assuming they went in through the door. There is a sign on the door.

Nobody in the group saw the sign? Nobody in the group saw the waiters tossing rolls as they walked to their table?

GMAB. common sense tells me otherwise.

What's more, if you see a video of the roll-throwing, it's clear that the waiters do not throw rolls willy-nilly around the restaurant. They only throw rolls to people who indicate that they want them and only throw the roll when the recipient is ready.

 

[Montjoy]

Or do you assume the risk when you buy your ticket and take your seat?

This. It is codified in the law, and there are signs and announcements to make it clear the people assume such risks.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

You are making a nonsensical argument because the sign isn't grammatically correct.

Common sense usually can differentiate between an advertisement and a warning sign but perhaps it is deemed to be one and the same in the middle of nowhere Missouri and travelers would be wise to avoid it altogether. That's what I always do.

JMO

So because it's not grammatically correct it negates the meaning? News flash: it's not grammatically correct ON PURPOSE. To make it catchy and cute. Common sense tells you when you see it that rolls are going to be thrown.

Does it matter if its an advertisement or a warning sign? It tells you what's happening in the restaurant.
It is then your choice to go there or not. It's everywhere. Billboards, the road sign, across the top of the building, on the door.

While you think what I'm saying is nonsense, I disagree.

There is a thing called assumed risk.
I believe she willingly assumed the risk.

By the way, she never said she didn't know. She knew. So whose argument is nonsensical?

 

[corundogs]

So because it's not grammatically correct it negates the meaning? News flash: it's not grammatically correct ON PURPOSE. To make it catchy and cute. Common sense tells you when you see it that rolls are going to be thrown.

Does it matter if its an advertisement or a warning sign? It tells you what's happening in the restaurant.
It is then your choice to go there or not. It's everywhere. Billboards, the road sign, across the top of the building, on the door.

While you think what I'm saying is nonsense, I disagree.

There is a thing called assumed risk.
I believe she willingly assumed the risk.

By the way, she never said she didn't know. She knew. So whose argument is nonsensical?

Anyone going to Lamberts knows exactly what happens there. This is not some hole in the wall off the highway. There is just no reason to try to reason with some posters.

This is a well known family owned restaurant. And tour buses from all over the country go there. It is a well known stop. And often an hour wait or more.

The pastor says she was injured. She has medical bills. There is now a lawsuit. There will be an outcome. But I doubt the restaurant will change it's practices. This is why one of the reasons they are known and loved by thousands and thousands.

 

[corundogs]

<modsnip> (modsnip) I'm pretty sure most people don't consider all restaurants to be a "potentially dangerous situation." Now that Lambert's is notorious for "throwed rolls" and resulting lawsuits, I bet all groups will be avoiding it. LOL

assumption of risk

n. 1) taking a chance in a potentially dangerous situation.

Read more: http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2457#ixzz3jak2hmyD

You would be wrong. This restaurant has been in business for 70+ years. And the practice has been around since 1976.

And as I mentioned above, is a well-known stop for tour buses from across the country.

<modsnip>(modsnip)

They throw 200 dozen rolls a day.*** ETA - that fact was from an article written in 1981. I am quite sure it is much more than that today!</modsnip></modsnip>